Fair use for educational/research purposes only

Local opposition often stymies power plant construction

By COLLEEN VALLES The Associated Press 1/14/01 4:00 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Despite the threat that California's energy crisis could make communities across the state go dark, many residents still resist construction of new power plants in their neighborhoods.

A proposed power plant that has drawn fire in San Jose is just a bad idea, says resident Elizabeth Cord, even though she lives three miles from the site.

"It's an inappropriate location. I think there are many other locations throughout the Bay area and the state," said Cord. "Of course, they're playing this to the hilt, that we need it, but the facts don't bear that out."

Wholesale power prices have increased fivefold in California since summer, accompanied by a series of drops in the state's power reserves. The state already has spent roughly $30 million buying electricity in the past month to stave off rolling blackouts.

And California's two biggest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison, say they have lost more than $9 billion because the state's 1996 deregulation law prevents them from passing the higher electricity prices on to their customers.

Many communities worry about pollution from new plants, but advocates say they can be cleaner than existing industries.

Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, said a 550-megawatt plant planned for Los Angeles County would be very clean for an operation of its size.

"It would be put in an area near a big warehouse," Martin said. "It's estimated that the plant would be cleaner than the warehouse, with its diesel trucks going back and forth. It's still being heavily opposed."

In San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley, the city council has rejected the proposed power plant near Cisco Systems Inc.'s 688-acre corporate park in Coyote Valley in part because the site is too close to residential neighborhoods.

"There is still too much uncertainty about the local air quality impacts," said city spokesman David Vossbrink. "We're not opposed to it if a good practical site can be found that's not a detriment to our neighborhoods or environment."

The California Energy Commission, which licenses new power plants, endorsed the proposed San Jose plant in October and could effectively overrule the city council's land-use ruling.

The commission has licensed one power plant against a community's wishes. However, that plant in the Hunter's Point area of San Francisco never was built because the land could not be obtained.

The commission also overruled a local jurisdiction in Northern California near the Geysers geothermal power plants after local authorities had refused power line access.

"It very seldom happens," said Rob Schlichting, a spokesman for the energy commission. "We prefer to make everybody happy if we can."

In San Jose, Vossbrink said the state should concentrate on bringing all existing power plants on line. About a third of the state's generating capacity is out of service for various reasons, including maintenance.

"It's not about a single plant in San Jose," he said.

But Schlichting said more plants are still needed. Sixty-five percent of the state's power plants are more than 30 years old, meaning they need to be shut more frequently for service, and the trend is to replace them with new, cleaner, more efficient power plants.

The commission is considering 14 new power plants.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0488_BC_PowerWoes-Neighborhoo&&news&newsflash-national

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), January 14, 2001

Answers

Who needs power plants? Electricity comes out of the walls of my house.

-- John Littmann (littmannj@aol.com), January 14, 2001.

Published Monday, January 15, 2001

Lack of sites plague planned power plants

Residents are leery of the health and environmental dangers; companies say the new facilities would be cleaner and more efficient By Colleen Valles ASSOCIATED PRESS

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

SAN FRANCISCO -- While the state faces an energy crisis that could make communities across the state go dark, many Californians still don't want to see power plants built in their neighborhoods.

Many communities cite concerns about pollution as reasons for opposing the construction of new plants, but state officials say they're needed to get out of the power crunch, due in large part to wholesale power prices that have increased fivefold since last summer.

California's two biggest investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison, blocked under California's 1996 deregulation law from passing the rate hikes on to their customers, say they have lost more than $9 billion because of the increases and a freeze on retail rates.

And new power plants can be cleaner than existing industries.

Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, cited as an example a 550-megawatt plant planned for Los Angeles County that would use an advanced technology to make the plant very clean for a facility of that size.

"It would be put in an area near a big warehouse," he said. "It's estimated that the plant would be cleaner than the warehouse, with its diesel trucks going back and forth. It's still being heavily opposed."

The same has happened in San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley, with the City Council rejecting a proposal for a power plant near Cisco Systems Inc.'s newly approved 688-acre corporate park planned for Coyote Valley.

The council made a land-use decision saying that location was unacceptable, in part because it was too close to residential neighborhoods.

The California Energy Commission, which licenses new power plants, endorsed the proposed plant in October, saying it could help lessen the state's electricity crisis.

The commission is reviewing the plans for the plant and if it licenses the so-called Metcalf Energy Center, that could effectively overrule the City Council's land-use decision.

The commission has licensed one power plant, proposed for the Hunter's Point area of San Francisco, against the community's wishes. That plant never got built, however, because the land could not be obtained.

The commission also overruled a local jurisdiction in Northern California near the Geysers geothermal power plants, when the local authorities had refused power line access.

"It very seldom happens," said Rob Schlichting, a commission spokesman. "We prefer to make everybody happy if we can."

The commission takes the public's concerns into account when deciding whether to license a power plant, Schlichting said.

"There are things like environmental justice -- why are you putting another power plant here when people are already subject to pollution?" he said.

"What would make us turn down a plant? If it's poorly thought out, poorly designed, doesn't meet land-use criteria, doesn't meet California Environmental Quality Act regulations, water supply."

A number of the state's power plants are located in Kern County, which, so far, has not opposed them too much, Schlichting said. Most of them, however, are located in oil fields, close to natural gas supplies and away from residential neighborhoods.

The commission is considering 14 new power plants, and before deregulation was passed in the mid-1990s, 12 new plants were approved. Nine of those have been built.

In the case of the south San Jose plant, homes are located nearby, said David Vossbrink, a spokesman for the city.

"There is still too much uncertainty about the local air quality impacts," he said. "We're not opposed to it if a good practical site can be found that's not a detriment to our neighborhoods or environment."

Vossbrink said the state should concentrate on bringing its power plants all on-line -- about a third of the state's power plants currently are off-line for different reasons, including maintenance.

"It's not about a single plant in San Jose," he said. "There's already a lot of new capacity that's going to be built."

But Calpine Corp. spokesman Bill Highlander said the San Jose-based company, which proposed the Metcalf Energy Center, wants to develop at least 8,000 megawatts of power throughout the state. And in order to lessen opposition from locals, Calpine does community outreach to focus on the good points about the plant.

But Elizabeth Cord, who lives about three miles from where the plant would go, still thinks it's a bad idea.

"It's an inappropriate location. I think there are many other locations throughout the Bay Area and the state," she said. "Of course, they're playing this to the hilt, that we need it, but the facts don't bear that out."

But Schlichting said more plants still are needed. Sixty-five percent of the state's power plants are more than 30 years old, meaning they have to go down for service more often, and the trend will be to replace them with new, cleaner, more efficient power plants, he said.

"Often the project changes to meet local considerations," Schlichting said. "It's often kind of a trade-off."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/cgi-bin/emailfriend/emailfriend.cgi? mode=print&doc=http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/california/stories /nimbypower_20010115.htm

-- Martin Thompson (mthom1927@aol.com), January 15, 2001.